This happened last year in the daytime. They pulled it and did the same puzzle that night. Nobody was upset with that.

My guess is that it was done that way because it would have been more unfair to the puzzlemakers if their puzzles ended up published on Saturday morning because of a scheduling mishap.

... not that there's anything wrong with Saturday morning!

[2] Why is it unfair to the puzzlemakers? They got their 150 points for creating the puzzle. It was unfair to those of us in the top 20 solves. I was number 23 so I lose the points I would have received as number 7 as well as a top 20 solve.

Actually, Brownie, I remember that happening earlier. And, I was upset then. It was unfair then, too.

[1] I think I remember that and I didn't like it one bit, though I didn't bother complaining at the time. Now that you remind me, I was extremely irritated, and thought there was an "in crowd" and that I was not a member.

[4][5] Sorry I didn't know people were upset. Nobody said anything back then. When it happened in the day (last year) I was doing the older puzzles and that's when the new puzzle popped up accidentally.

There is an obvious two tiered society in place here. In fact Arnott is currently working on a badge "We Are The In Crowd!."

Hankescu, you won't be getting one.

If it's any consolation (and it probably isn't) those who discovered and solved the puzzle early got fewer points for their places than was normal. The first place solver got 103 points (instead of 110). I posted that I solved 7th and got 97.

My guess (and it's only a guess) is that there were 2 factors in play. Normally a puzzle when published "featured" is worth 10 points. And there are bonus points for the top 100 solvers, ranging from 100 down to 1 point. Once a puzzle has been up for 24 hours, its value is reduced to 3 points. Since the puzzles were mistakenly scheduled for Jan 2nd (should have been tonight, Feb 2nd), the system assigned it only 3 points (instead of 10 for solving on the same day) but still awarded the normal bonus points for top 100 solvers.

Haven't you ever made a mistake? Cut them some slack, geeze.

Edit:
By the way, do you see what time I get to do puzzles EVERY day? I never get to compete for points. I had to get over that. It should be pretty easy for you to get over 1 mistake.

[9] You can start a thread all about how you never get to compete for points....go ahead. Don't scold me for my opinion and don't tell me to get over anything. Work on your own issues/ problems....geeze.

So, where were the two errant puzzles located previously to last night? Where did the "random handful" find the puzzles? It's a fair question.

[11] When they were available, they were positioned in the archives on Jan 2, 2012 (right next to the "real" puzzles from that night). My guess was that some folks who have solved all the tanga puzzles hit the "Surprise Me" button and the puzzles showed up. Surprise me indeed...

Patanga & sykottik, consider this. The 16 people who solved the Crypto and 12 people who solved the OWW were all regulars. They would have all been here live last night to solve the puzzle just like usual.

So [3] got 23rd but had 16 usual competitors that were not competing last night because they had already solved it. If those people had all been solving live too, sykottik almost assuredly would not have been 7th. It's possible he might have been, but not likely.

At most, people lost 28 (16+12) total points - realistically less for the reasons I mentioned above - and MAYBE lost 1 or 2 points in the top 20 rankings. I would argue that absolutely no one lost a top 100 ranking point (in the Leaderboards) because all of the people who solved early would have been in the top 100 if they had solved it live.

Long and short of it is this (imo):

1) You really didn't lose that much in points or Leaderboard standings.
2) They really didn't gain much in points or Leaderboard standings.
3) If we had then unfeatured these, those 16/12 people would have gained much more advantage over all because they would have had an extra puzzle with bonus points (since they got these bonus pts and then add in the new featured puzzle).
4) People make mistakes. The scheduling process is unfortunately very manual, so you should really be impressed that Arnott gets it right so often that mess-ups like this seem like a "big deal".
5) The puzzlemakers had earned a featured spot, which sees more solves than an unfeatured one. In light of points 1 & 2, it wouldn't have been fair to them - it's not a points thing, it's a visibility thing.

So big picture, I think Arnott did right.

And, finally [11], [12] is basically right. The puzzles were right there where they would usually be. So Surprise Me people saw them. Anyone who navigated to the OWW or Crypto list to see if they had missed the weekend's Unfeatured puzzles would have seen them. YOU could have seen them. The problem was corrected as soon as it was detected and then they were no longer visible until their new feature time.

I just read [5] & [7] closer... I hope [7] is joking. Seriously, I've never known anyone who works harder to make a level playing field and keep things fair than Arnott. There's not an "in crowd" - there's just some people that more obsessively check Tanga than others and thus notice situations like this in time to solve them.

When mistakes happen, someone will suffer for it. It can't be completely fixed. I think the way this was handled was the most fair way to resolve it.

[14] I think it's safe to say that we should never take anything that sykottik posts seriously.

[10] You might want to re read my comment, that's all it was is a comment. I didn't tell you "to get over" anything and I never "scolded" you for anything either. I didn't even complain about not being able to compete for points. You have no problem scolding me or telling me to start my own thread to complain about competing for points (which seem to be your problems). Maybe you should take your own advice. I also would not have to start a complaint thread of my own (which by the way I wouldn't do) because you've got one right here. You seem to be the one with "issues". Stop reading things in to other peoples comments and read what they write.
If you don't like it here, go somewhere else and play or learn to be nice.

[15] Very astute observation. I thought [7] was pretty funny and I expected an LOL from Arnott. You, bitwisenot, are very perspicacious, and sharp as a tack. But, then again, one never takes me seriously.
YOU will definitely get your "In crowd" badge. Congrats.

(Note to Arnott: I propose this badge, to help you out. "CRWEARETHEOWD")

[16] [10][9] CAT FIGHT, CAT FIGHT! Don't play nice! It's about time there was an entertaining thread that a non-engineer/mathmatician/Mod can enjoy.

Whoops, almost forgot..... [13] Edit: If those people had all been solving live too, sykottik almost assuredly would not have been 7th. It's possible he might have been, but not likely, because he's too stupid..

[19] It's a good thing I don't have to take you seriously. :)

But you know, in my well-thoughtout (imo) analysis above, I forgot to take something into account. During live solves, especially on the cryptopix, there are LOTs of duplicate placements (i.e. 3 1st place finishers, 4 6th place, etc). Tanga sometimes skips numbers in this situation, but sometimes doesn't. It all depends on how fast the night was. You solved it at 28 seconds past the hour. I still maintain that you probably wouldn't have been 7th, but you most definitely would have still been top 20.

I looked at the solve times on several other recent cryptos to see how many solvers there were at the 28 second mark. I threw out some of the unusually tricky ones (me, TangaAl, QD):

bargellos 1/30 - 21 solvers for 21 places
bargellos 1/28 - 24 solvers for 12 places
bargellos 1/27 - 25 solvers for 13 places
Philana 1/25 - 22 solvers for 18 places

So, 28 seconds in is usually good enough for a top 20 finish - even though considerably more than 20 people might have actually solved during that time.

So last night, sy lost a maximum of 16 points and 1 top-twenty finish. I don't see you on the solver list for the OWW.

Patanga finished 19th on the crypto anyway so already got the top-twenty finish. They solved the OWW 41 minutes in, which sometimes will garner a top 100 finish but often won't. They finished 105th so you could try to argue that they would have finished top 100 without those first 12 solves except that at least 10 of those 12 are always here and almost always solve in less than 40 minutes, so... I'd maintain that Patanga lost a theoretical 28 points and a top 100 finish, but realistically, I'd say they lost no more than 16 points, period.

I've lost 10X that many points just by falling behind on answering Random Questions! My whole point is that no one really lost out all that much, so while I think it's ok to have a theoretical discussion on the best way to handle such situations, I honestly don't think it's anything anyone should be worked up about and you can't just subtract 12 or 16 from your finish and say that's what you "deserved".

I've found this discussion amusing. I would have thought people would be more upset by certain puzzle-makers solving their own puzzles in the top 20, thereby definitely preventing others from getting that top ranking and the bonus points...

I lost a couple of points (don't care much about them anymore; I want to keep my pepper as long as I can) and a probable top 20 finish (I do care about those).

Here's how I look at it. The mistake didn't benefit any particular 'group' of people (e.g., it wasn't only mods who stumbled across and solved the early puzzles). It's effects were pretty limited (a few people might have lost a couple of points and maybe a top 20 finish). It was a one-off thing and not something systematic. Given all that, it's not something I'm going to get worked up over. Life's way too short for me to put forth any emotional investment in this blip : ).

[21] Yeah, now THAT bugs me. That has to do with integrity imo, something I value pretty highly. (aside: the bonus points aren't much of an issue in that case since the author-solver doesn't get any points, only a top 20 finish).

[23] Yes the author gets no bonus points, but if they take the 1st place finish for example, the next person that solves gets 2nd and 109 points instead of 1st and 110 (for cryptos/OWWs - hypers are worth 10 points more). The effect is that every other solver that would have gotten bonus points ends up with 1 fewer point. Maybe not enough to get worked up about, but if that happens for every puzzle published, it adds up.

Since the authors can have the puzzles open prior to them being "live," with the answer (or all the answers in the case of a hyper) already entered, it gives them a huge advantage, should they choose to do so.

[20] Could you re-figure all the calculations taking into consideration the server lag time? Although I was 28 seconds, it took the server 14 seconds to load the puzzle. So, my solve time was 14 seconds, maybe. You also have to take into account how long the server takes to verify your answer because it often adds that time to your solve time. I always do the crypto first (if I'm here at 10:00) and often my solve time is as little as 7 seconds, but even at that, my finish can be anywhere from first to 20+ depending on all/any of the above.

Much of the delay and thus finish position is attributable to your proximity to the server. (ie: the closer you are to AZ the faster the transmission time. BUT.. the packet route of your ISP can alter that significantly). Since I am on the right coast, my transmission usually goes thru a major hub such as Chicago on it's way to AZ. Once one of these bottlenecks is encountered, delays may be considerable.

Sonjahi when you figure your calculations, please consider the user's location, the Number of Hops, Per-Hop processing delay, Link propagation delay, Packet transmission delay, and the message size (in packets). This way you can figure the total delay time, which is, total propagation + total transmission + store and forward + total processing. Don't forget not to exclude the time involved in acknowledging connection termination due to circuit switching. I'm not going to go into the delays caused by the internal software and coding of the server once the first packet is received. Tangajoe can explain that one. After you recalculate your figures, please show all your work or I can't give you full credit.

If any of this was really important, I'd move to Gilbert.

[25] :)

[25] :) lol... You also have to factor in how long it took your decrepit old fingers to click the mouse in order to load the page...

At any rate, all that stuff is why I went with your time after 7pm instead of your solve time (I can see both). I figure you are almost always the same distance from the server so suffer the same disadvantage each time.

And while I did my analysis because I find over-analyzing things fun (maybe I should see if there's room in your ward), what you are suggesting doesn't sound fun so... guess I'll have to do without full credit from you.

[21]-[24] I once talked to a puzzlemaker who does that to try to understand why they do it. I was told that if they sat out their own puzzles, that would artificially lower their standings in the top-20 and top-100 Leaderboards. This is true since they are almost always in the top 100 and very often in the top 20.

However, I would contend that by always solving their own puzzles in the top 20, they are artificially raising their standings in at least the top-20 Leaderboard. If they are top 20 in, say, 80% of other people's puzzles, then by being top 20 in 100% of theirs, they are potentially inflating their numbers. [I say 'potentially' because you'd have to try to factor in relative difficulty of their puzzles.]

I had suggested to them at the time that they at least wait until there is one solve so the true first solver can get the excitement of being first and I think they did for awhile, but they don't now.

So, yeah, that kind of bugs me too, but when it comes right down to it, it's just a game. The points really don't matter. The Leaderboards really don't matter. It's unfortunate that we sometimes don't get a true report on how successful we were in our competition against each other, but... I'd like to think that most of us are here for the puzzles more than the race and the points.

Oh, and I think it'd be really interesting to see which puzzlemakers might change their "solve first" habit if each puzzle had the top 5 or 10 solvers listed just like Words In The Weeds does. *grin*

[28] If Tanga would at least fix Recent History so that you can scroll back through several pages (like you used to be able to do) I suspect it might cut down on the practice as well. As it stands I find the Recent History function absolutely useless.

[29] What's more useful is to see your "Friends Activities". Interestingly enough that underlying functionality still exists (and works!), but the link is no longer present. I also find it interesting (and useful!) that you can see other people's "Friends Activities"

[28] Why not just credit the puzzle maker with an (honorary) Top 20 and Top 100 and actually prevent them from being able to solve their own puzzles. That way, most, if not all, issues would be resolved.

[31] Great idea. I just wonder if there might be logistical programming issues that might make it impractical to set up given the resources allocated to the 'puzzle side'.

[29] I was here when Recent History worked and I think the behavior was the same.

[31] I like that idea! But like [32] said, I bet there are logistical problems with that, but maybe not too bad. If there was a way to mark a person as having "solved" their puzzle as it posted without it counting as the first solve (maybe 0-index instead of 1-index the list), then they'd get top-20 and top-100, the puzzle would have a check on it, but the first "real" solver would be 1st and get the bonus points.

[31] With all the crap in this thread (OK, so a lot of it is mine), this is a really good idea. I applaud you.

For me solving the puzzles the other night in January I dropped over 30 points on the Leaderboards for February. So last night when the puzzles came up I was saying some pretty good words seeing I didn't know where the puzzles were. I kept hitting refresh and had a trash mouth here.

When this happened last year, I solved one of them (there was three), but I also reported it to Tanga.

I was meaning to post something similar to [28] this morning, but she beat me to it.

Suppose there are two tanganites that both get top 20 solves on others puzzle 50% of the time. If one never creates puzzles, and the other creates *many* puzzles, then the puzzle creator would essentially be punished (in terms of top 20 solves) because they put forth the effort to create puzzles. Personally, I don't even solve my own puzzles at all anymore. But, I do understand the reasons for why certain tanganites do so. I certainly don't want to (effectively) have frequent makers of high-quality puzzles feel like they are penalized for doing so.

I'd actually prefer that puzzle authors never took a top 20 ([31]'s idea is interesting), but, as sonjahi said, if an author is truly worried about missing out on top 20 solves, the most fair thing to do would be for those authors to only take a top 20 on their own puzzle the same proportion of the time that the get a top 20 on other people's puzzle.

However, I do plead that puzzle authors avoid taking the #1 spot on their own puzzle. That #1 spot is coveted! Who wasn't thrilled upon getting their "first first"!? It irks me when puzzle authors take the #1 spot. To not have a chance of getting 1st from the get-go seems wrong.

[36] I've had this very discussion with a moderator a few weeks ago. While I understand the position you present, don't forget that puzzle-makers are compensated for their efforts in terms of tanga points for featured puzzles (150 for a crypto, 250 for a OWW, and 300 for a hyper). The points system favors the puzzle-makers, the top 20/top 100 system favors solvers (or at least it should). If a person is interested in the points leaderboards, they should make puzzles that get featured. If they are concerned with the top 20/top 100 leaderboards they should solve other people's puzzles. I don't think one should have one's cake and be able to eat it too.

But that's my opinion. Personally I haven't solved any of my own puzzles in the top 100, even the unfeatured ones.

It's funny how seriously some people take these points. I understand the fact it's a pride thing, but the puzzles are free, fair and for fun. You can't buy a hamburger with them. Believe it or not, or can't even sell them on eBay. Lighten up people.

[38] You don't need to convince me ... I'm on your side, really. All I am saying is that I don't think this is a B&W issue that some make it out to be. That is, there are intelligible arguments to be made for the "other side", so I don't automatically assume they do what they do because they are thoughtless and/or selfish -- they may think they are doing a reasonable thing. Theoretically. :-)

Interesting how this thread has changed from a specific, fairly minor, incident to a general discussion of integrity and principles. Thanks, Patanga, for sticking your neck out to raise an issue.
I don't watch leaderboards much, but I do love a top 10 or top 20 solve, and I'm still excited to get new fruit. The thought that puzzlemakers are poised to solve their own puzzles at the appointed hour really ticks me off. It is disingenuous to say the least, and I appreciate Bitwise, Adam and others speaking up against the practice. I wouldn't call it "potentially inflating" their standings, I would call it "cheating". [31] Jeb's idea is a good one, if the points aren't enough.
That said, I am grateful that there are puzzlemakers, because I haven't made one yet, and I do love my Tanga.
In the interest of full disclosure, I found the rogue Crypto and got ~80 points. I didn't notice anything unusual about the puzzle at the time.
[7] Sy, although I am an engineer and a liberal, we might be in the same crowd.
(Dammit, I just wasted another hour of my life on Tanga. Ha.:)

[17] not so sure...I think you should talk to [7]...i think [7] is right......Seriously, I think the 1% probably complains more than the rest.... I think [7] is more right than [17] thinks\....

[39] Agreed.

You know, I don't know the history exactly, but on boardgamegeek.com (BGG) you can earn GeekGold (GG) for contributing to the site. At least in the beginning GG was like tanga points (TPs) -- all it earned you was bragging rights and avatar-related stuff (badge-like stuff). Currently on BGG, users can transfer/tip each other GG, and are even allowed to purchase GG from one another for actually money ... and they do! People "sell" boardgames for (fictional) GG that others can earn for free on the site!

Nowadays, BGG gives people 1GG for every dollar they donate to BGG, even though the going rate for GG is far less that $1 per GG. But people do it ... genius!

So, who knows. Maybe someday you will be able to (indirectly) buy a hamburger with TPs.

PS. "CRWEARETHEOWD" badge. Nice, lol.

[44] Without fries?? *laugh*

[38] I've got to disagree with your call on 'compensation' for puzzlemakers. To me the points awarded for published puzzles are nowhere near equitable to the bonus points earned from solving puzzles. I can earn bonus points from solving puzzles much more quickly (and with less effort) than I can from making them. Although some may disagree with my perspective, as a Tanga Hotshot with 92k points earned mostly from solving puzzles (I've only had 6 puzzles published) at least I think it's clear I'm not suffering from 'puzzlemaker bias' : ).
.
As an aside, I also see an inequity with respect to the points awarded for the different types of puzzles. A Hypercross is basically 12+ mini Cryptos but only worth twice the points. And (for me at least) the effort in creating a feature-worthy OWW is more than twice that required to create a feature-worthy Crypto.

I didn't notice that line of [38] ("The points system favors the puzzle-makers") until [46] referenced it. I would also disagree with this.

Even "quick" puzzles I create take 30-60 minutes to create, which is roughly the time I spend on "longer" puzzles I attempt as a puzzler. And, of course, some puzzles take *much* *much* longer than 30-60 minutes to create (I'm actually a little embarrassed to say how long I've spent on some puzzles). In contrast, back when I came at 7pmPST every night I recall easily getting 2-3 top 20 solves on the Featured Crypto per week (that's ~250 points for under 1 minute of effort right there!).

Of course, Bit, if you're really trying to say that, "the points system favors those who both solve and make puzzles over those who just solve puzzles", I'd concede that. Edit: in fact, now that I think about it, this must be what you meant. However, I still contest that you're compensated much more richly per your time spent when solving puzzles.

I think see eye-to-eye with you about how the top-20 list should strongly favor the (good) puzzle-solvers (regardless of whether they create puzzles or not). As much as a like [31]'s suggestion, it would be nice to have a list that really let's people compete based on their puzzles-solving ability --independent of authorship-- and I've always thought of the "top 20" as being that list.

PS. With all that being said, I probably care *much* less than most around here about TPs and my top 20 rank; so, personally, I don't care what happens! :-D

[46] [47] You've both missed my point. I'm not talking about how much time (in hours or minutes) it takes to create vs. how much time it takes to solve.

I'm saying that on any given night there are 2 or 3 "featured" puzzles. As one person, you are going to be the puzzle maker/solver on a fixed number of combinations of them. Perhaps you made 0 and you are the solver for 2/3. Perhaps you made 1 and you are the solver for 1/2. Perhaps you made 2 and you are the solver of 0/1. Or you made all 3 (on hyper night) and you solve 0.

The most points one can get as a solver is 110 for crypto/OWW and 120 for hyper as a solver. As a featured puzzlemaker one gets a fixed 150/250/300.

So understanding that there are a limited amount of featured puzzles on any given day, one is better off to be a (featured) puzzle maker than a straight solver. The more featured puzzles one has, the better off one is compared to any given solver.

I'm not at all talking about the time investment. In my opinion tanganites are compensated for their time by the enjoyment/satisfaction they get either solving or creating. If they didn't enjoy it, they wouldn't do it (unless they enjoy making themselves suffer, but that's a different issue).

A person that has a featured triptych gets 700 points. Another person that gets three 1st place finishes on that same triptych gets 340 points.

If one thinks that puzzlemakers aren't compensated enough, I'd point to the backlog of submitted puzzles and ask why people keep making puzzles if they don't feel that they are getting something that is equivalent to or exceeds the amount of time they put into making.

I'm not arguing for any particular course of action. That said, I do think that it would be cool if the normal puzzles got the permanent "top 5 solvers" tab that the Words in the Weeds has. Maybe that would make transparent any puzzlemaker that solves his/her own puzzle in the top 5. One could even expand it to a permanent top 10, or top 20.

[48] I see what you're saying but I think you're hyperfocused and therefore not taking into account the more relevant, broader perspective.
.
"So understanding that there are a limited amount of featured puzzles on any given day, one is better off to be a (featured) puzzle maker than a straight solver. The more featured puzzles one has, the better off one is compared to any given solver."
.
But that doesn't take into account the bigger picture. To simplify, let's talk about a Solver and a Puzzlemaker as if they each only participated as per their title. Your example focuses on a single night. Sure, the Puzzlemaker with a published triptych is guaranteed significantly more points than the Solver could earn for that night. But most Solvers can realistically play every puzzle most nights. The Puzzlemaker is limited as to how many puzzles he can realistically create (in the real world as compared to the theoretical you've got to admit that time is a factor). He's further limited as to how many will be published, and even further limited as to how many will be featured. If you objectively look at the bigger picture across time I think you'd have to admit that practicalities dictate a bigger overall earning potential from solving puzzles than from making them.

Here's a different perspective, and I know this is tangential to the point you were trying to make :). Bonus points are earned; the 'capital' (I know, not quite the right term, but it's late here on the east coast & my brain's a bit fuzzy) exchanged for bonus points is either solving a puzzle more quickly than other solvers or creating puzzles for other solvers to solve. From that perspective it seems fair to compare the relative value of the different types of 'capital' received by the Points Giver (Tanga) with respect to the remuneration (bonus points) it returns in exchange. I know there's value in attracting potential shoppers to the site via puzzle competition (what Tanga essentially gets out of the whole setup), but I'd hold that the puzzles themselves are more important to retaining viewers than the fact that Tanga points are given for quick solves..
.
Lastly, you said:
"If one thinks that puzzlemakers aren't compensated enough, I'd point to the backlog of submitted puzzles and ask why people keep making puzzles if they don't feel that they are getting something that is equivalent to or exceeds the amount of time they put into making."

As you alluded to a couple of paragraphs before that one, most tanganites participate for the enjoyment/ satisfaction of creating or solving puzzles. I'd just point out that since the principle applies to solving puzzles as well as creating them, I don't see the relevance of your statement above when it comes to comparing the relative points awarded for solving vs. creating puzzles. After all, wouldn't most solvers also continue to participate even if the bonus points were devalued?

Again, I understand your point. I just think it needs to be considered from a broader perspective. And, agian, I'm much more of a 'solver' than a 'puzzlemaker' : ).

[48] I'd be OK with a top 5 (or top whatever) like the weeds has.

I don't think I missed the point. You're saying that each time a puzzler's puzzle is featured, they're strictly netting points because they will attain more points via authoring that puzzle than they possibly could if it wasn't theirs. I get that. But that's *way* different than saying "the point system favors puzzle makers" -- that says something much more general/different.

I still contest that your argument lends itself better to comparing {avid puzzle solvers} to {puzzle creators who are also avid puzzle solvers} (even though that's not what your doing). Here's why...

... Suppose AAA is a very good solver; only solves puzzles, doesn't create any, gets an average of 80 points per puzzle (all puzzle types; this seems plausible). Assuming 2.5 puzzles/day, they get 80x25=2000 points every 10 days.

... Suppose BBB is a very good puzzler creator, created 200 puzzles over the last 3 years (e.g. -- Jeb did this; and he creates a LOT in my opinion). For comparison sake, say BBB either doesn't solve many puzzles or only get 3 or 5 pts/puzzle because they solve late -- i.e. negligible points from solving. Such a person averages 2 puzzles published every 10 days. Even if they're both featured HCs (which, on average, they won't be), that's still only 600 points!

My point is that you can definitely be a top points earner while creating few or no puzzles (e.g. SydneyHeart is 4th overall with only 14 created puzzles ever). On the other hand, the only way one could be a contender by only creating puzzles is if nearly half of all featured puzzles were yours (and even if this were the case, it could only be the case for 1 or 2 tanganites [by the Pigeonhole Principle]).

So, between puzzlers and puzzle-makers, I would argue the opposite of what you said; I would say the point system favors puzzlers (but, of course, those that do *both* are the most favored). On the other hand, the point system is more than *fair* to the puzzle-creators (in considering any one isolated puzzle).

PS. There are those who do get the majority of their points through puzzle-creating; I'm slowly becoming one of those people, actually (which means I'll be unfavored by the points system, unless I make so many puzzles that half of all featured puzzles are mine ... and you don't want that!).

[49] [50] I see that it is obvious that a person who never solves puzzles will be at a disadvantage in terms of points compared with a person that always solves puzzles. I don't think I've said otherwise, but since you both seem to think that's what I was saying, perhaps I was unclear.

The comparison I was trying to make was not with polar opposites (pure solver vs. pure maker). I was trying to compare a pure solver with a person that could have been a pure solver but instead chose to make some puzzles in addition to solving. I realize that I was not clear in explicitly stating my "givens" for the argument I was attempting to make, but I wasn't expecting a level of scrutiny equivalent to a mathematical proof, either. When I say "puzzle-maker" I am making a commentary on whether or not they make puzzles (and to a lesser extent how many they make). In my mind I do not particularly consider what kind of a solver they are when I use the term "puzzle-maker" I certainly don't mean folks that only make puzzles, excluding all other participation. That's why I suggested in [38] that the points system favors the puzzle-makers, because I didn't feel I was making any kind of commentary on what they do as far as solving goes. Another way to put it is that if tanganite ZZZ participates in X puzzles per month (by solving) and tanganite YYY also participates in X puzzles per month (ie the exact same number) but instead makes them and has them featured, I found it obvious that YYY would be leading in points. To me that's (a bit) more of an "apples to apples" comparison than looking at two tanganites that have completely different participation levels (in terms of pure number of puzzles either solved or made). Yes, if BBB participates in only about 5.5 puzzles per month and AAA participates in about 75 puzzles per month, chances are AAA is going to be ahead in points. It's theoretically possible of course for that not to be the case (where AAA receives few bonus points or solves more than a day after the puzzles are featured for example). I was not trying to make such a comparison and I apologize if my comments were confusing.

So just chiming in with a response to the original complaint of how the TANGA FIASCO OF 2012 was handled. From an occasional and fairly new puzzlemaker's perspective, I think they (Tanga) did the right thing in featuring the puzzles.

I don't think most puzzlemakers make a puzzle for the points. (I don't know that most puzzle solvers do either, but that's beside my point here.) I can say that I make puzzles because they're fun to create and I like having other people solve them (and sometimes enjoy them). If I were to make a feature-worthy puzzle that I didn't get to have a lot of people solve (unfeatureds get a fraction of the action..) all because of a glitch or error, I'd be disappointed.

I think it would have been unfair to the puzzle makers to unfeature their puzzles in this case because fewer people would have gotten to enjoy them. In my opinion, the argument over points is kind of irrelevant. Hope that wasn't much of a rant, I just wanted to make sure that this perspective was contributed, too.

[51] You forgot to let ϵ > 0 be given.

I would appreciate if you nutjobs would leave me out of your arguments!

Thank you
YYY

[54] lol.

[51] So, you're saying that the system favor's puzzle making because ... if all other aspects are equal (e.g. - they get equal solving points, RQ points, etc), someone who creates more puzzles gets more points. Well, couldn't I just flip your argument around on you? Couldn't I claim that ... the system favor's puzzlers because ... if all other aspects are equal (e.g. -- they get equal puzzle-making points, RQ points, etc.), someone who solves more puzzles gets more points. ???

Who knew beating dead horses was so much fun!?

I suppose you could argue that you can always make more puzzles, but not always solve more? That may be key.

[54] Maybe if you participated more you wouldn't have been such a great example! :)

On a side note it's probably a good thing, given the convention that Adam chose and I continued, that I didn't need a third tanganite example...

[55] I'm not sure that's really flipping the argument around. Let's see if I understand what you're saying - two tanganites (I won't name them this time!) are equal in everything except the amount they participate in puzzle solving. (It's possible they have different levels of participation in terms of numbers of puzzles made, because one perhaps makes more hypers and OWWs and the other makes more cryptos and they end up with the same points for making.) I don't think that's a valid argument for the hypothesis that "the system favors puzzlers." I would suggest that supports a different hypothesis that "the system favors those who participate more" (in terms of numbers of puzzles attempted) Another argument would be that two tanganites both solve the same number of puzzles, but one tanganite is a faster solver and thus gets more points than the one that is a slower solver. That also would not be an agrument that "the system favors puzzlers" but rather that "the system favors faster puzzlers"

I already suggested that a person who participates more would (most likely) earn more points. I find that obvious. I also wasn't trying to compare two tanganites that both solve, and both make puzzles, where one makes more puzzles than the other (though all things being equal, the one that made more puzzles or more valuable puzzles would be ahead). I was comparing a tanganite that makes some puzzles (and solves all the others) to one that never makes puzzles (and solves all the others). That's the only comparison I was trying to make. I wasn't trying to draw conclusions about all the possible combinations of levels of participation that any tanganite could make.

So I suppose to summarize, here are my contentions:
1. "The points system favors those who participate more" (in a general sense, subject to the following)
2. "The points system favors certain activities over others" (by making them worth more points)
3. "The points system favors faster solvers" (on the featured puzzles - no bonus points awarded for unfeatureds)

My earlier contention that the system favors puzzle-makers fits in with #2, I think. I was trying to keep #1 and #3 equal between two theoretical tanganites (they participate the same, in terms of # of puzzles and they are the same speed of solver when they do solve). If the only variable is the "value" of the activities that are being performed, then the one who participates in the higher value activities ends up ahead. That was the point I was trying to make - again I apologize if I was unclear.

[51] No, you weren't unclear on the 'sometimes' solver/ puzzlemaker issue. I just find that it's often useful to consider extremes when thinking about or discussing 'philosophy'. It seems to help clarify the principles involved (keeping in mind that practicalities also have to be considered). Sorry if I implied otherwise : ). After looking at your statements more closely I think I understand what you were trying to get at. It's just that, to me, the phrase 'The points system favors the puzzle-makers . . .' implies something more than what I think you intended. I wouldn't have commented if you had said something like 'Puzzle-makers are already rewarded through the points system; I think the top 20 (100) list should remain an unadulterated indicator of puzzle solving results'. Is that close?

EDIT: sorry bit, I didn't see [56] until after I posted this.

[52] Agreed. And I'd add that once the mistake was made there was going to be an inequity no matter how it was dealt with. Had the puzzles in question been moved to unfeatured status we'd have had a handful of solvers who earned the top bonus points for solving them while everyone else would be limited to a max of 3 points for solving. By keeping them featured the rest of us could at least compete for the remaining 85ish top bonus spots. Just a different perspective : ).

[57] I took no offense by your comments or Adam's, and have enjoyed the lively debate.

If I did make some kind of off-the-wall assertion, I would hope there would be people around to call me on it, so thank you for encouraging me to clarify my thoughts.

I also agree that the way it was handled was about the best way possible. Unfeaturing the puzzles would not have been fair to the makers or to the solvers that didn't see the puzzle when it was in a "featured" status. Possibly the admins could have left the puzzles up and put some kind of discussion topic/blog post/banner up that would alert tanganites to the presence of the accidentally released puzzles. Then new puzzles could have been featured at tanga time on Feb 2nd. This would have probably also raised a cry of "foul" by those who don't check tanga during the day, and we probably would have been hearing a different set of complaints. No solution would have left everyone completely happy. I think the solution that was implemented probably left the smallest number of folks unhappy, so I guess that's something.